Rules and Regulations. Notice
18,745 words·~85 min read·
/register/2008/05/23/08-1296A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Report to Congress on Abnormal Occurrences, Fiscal Year 2007; Dissemination of Information Section 208 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-438) defines an abnormal occurrence
(AO)as an unscheduled incident or event which the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)determines to be significant from the standpoint of public health or safety. The Federal Reports Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-68) requires that AOs be reported to Congress annually. During Fiscal Year 2007, eleven events that occurred at facilities licensed or otherwise regulated by the NRC and/or Agreement States were determined to be AOs. The report describes five events at NRC-licensed facilities. The first NRC-licensee event involved radiation exposure to an embryo/fetus. The other four NRC-licensee events were medical events, as defined in Title 10, Part 35, of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR part 35). All five NRC-licensee events occurred at medical institutions. The report also describes six events at Agreement State-licensed facilities. [Agreement States are those States that have entered into formal agreements with the NRC pursuant to Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act
(AEA)to regulate certain quantities of AEA licensed material at facilities located within their borders.] Currently, there are 34 Agreement States. All six events that occurred at Agreement State-licensed facilities were medical events, as defined in 10 CFR Part 35, and occurred at medical institutions. As required by Section 208, the discussion for each event includes the date and place, nature and probable consequences, the cause or causes, and the actions taken to prevent recurrence. Each event is also being described in NUREG-0090, Vol. 30, “Report to Congress on Abnormal Occurrences: Fiscal Year 2007.” This report is available electronically at the NRC Web site *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/.* I. For All Licensees A. Human Exposure to Radiation From Licensed Material During this reporting period, one event at an NRC-licensed and regulated facility was significant enough to be reported as an abnormal occurrence (AO). NRC07-01 Human Exposure to Radiation at Washington University Medical Center in St. Louis, Missouri *Date and Place* —May 29, 2007, St. Louis, Missouri. *Nature and Probable Consequences* —Washington University Medical Center (the licensee) reported that cancer treatment to a 22 year old patient using iodine-131 resulted in a dose to an embryo/fetus. On May 29, 2007, the treatment was conducted at Barnes Jewish Hospital, the affiliated teaching hospital of Washington University School of Medicine, using 4.64 GBq (126 mCi) of iodine-131. Prior to that treatment, the patient saw her prescribing physician on May 22, 2007, for a related consultation. In addition, because hospital procedures require a pregnancy test within 1 week before the therapy is administered, the licensee conducted a pregnancy test on the patient on the same day. That test yielded a negative result and the patient was advised not to get pregnant prior to the treatment. Moreover, before treatment on May 29, 2007, the patient signed a statement that, to the best of her knowledge, she was not pregnant. However, on May 30, 2007, the patient performed a home pregnancy test, which yielded a positive result. Consequently, the licensee performed another pregnancy test the same day, and the results indicated that the patient had been pregnant for 4-5 weeks at the time of the iodine-131 administration. The patient and the referring physician were informed of this event. As an approximation for the dose equivalent received by the embryo/fetus, the licensee's staff calculated an annual total effective dose equivalent to the patient's uterus, which was estimated to be 250-340 mSv (25-34 rem). The NRC-contracted medical consultant confirmed the licensee's dose estimate and determined that the most likely result would be delivery of a normal infant (with regard to thyroid function) because the iodine-131 was administered at such an early stage in the pregnancy; however, the risk of childhood cancer may be slightly increased. The possible effects of the event have been discussed with the patient. *Cause(s)* —The causes of this event were the false negative pregnancy test and the patient's lack of awareness that she might be pregnant. Actions Taken To Prevent Recurrence *Licensee* —Because the causes of this event were beyond the licensee's control, the licensee determined that no corrective action was necessary to prevent recurrence. *NRC* —There were no violations identified by the NRC. II. Commercial Nuclear Power Plant Licensees During this reporting period, no events at commercial nuclear power plants in the United States were significant enough to be reported as AOs. III. Events at Facilities Other Than Nuclear Power Plants and All Transportation Events C. Medical Licensees During this reporting period, four events at NRC-licensed or regulated facilities and six events at Agreement State-licensed facilities were significant enough to be reported as AOs. NRC07-02 Medical Event at St. Luke's Hospital of Kansas City, Missouri *Date and Place* —October 23-26, 2006, Kansas City, Missouri. *Nature and Probable Consequences* —On October 27, 2006, St. Luke's Hospital of Kansas City (the licensee) notified the NRC of a medical event that occurred during a high dose-rate
(HDR)remote afterloader, using a 144 GBq (3.9 Ci) iridium-192 source, brachytherapy procedure to treat breast cancer. The authorized user physician developed a written directive that prescribed 10 fractionated doses, to be administered to the patient's left breast using a balloon catheter technique, with each dose consisting of 3.4 Gy (340 rad), for a total dose of 34 Gy (3,400 rad). The first fractionated dose was administered to the patient on October 23, 2006. On October 26, 2006, after the seventh fraction and prior to administering the eighth fraction to the patient, the chief physicist noted a discrepancy. The investigation into the discrepancy revealed that the catheter length entered into the treatment planning computer was 93.0 cm (36.6 in), rather than 95.0 cm (37.4 in). This error resulted in delivering an unplanned dose of 100 Gy (10,000 rad), 1.0 cm (0.4 in) from the treatment site and proximal from the balloon. The area proximal from the balloon would have received an intended dose of 24.5 Gy (2,450 rad), had the treatment been delivered as prescribed by the authorized user physician. Moreover, because the prescribed dosage was not delivered to the correct location, the patient also received an under dosage to the distal side of the balloon. Specifically, the area intended to be treated received a dose in the range of 7 Gy to 10 Gy (700 rad to 1,000 rad) rather than the prescribed dosage of 34 Gy (3,400 rad). The patient and the referring physician were informed of this event. The authorized user physician did not expect any acute adverse medical effects to the patient as a result of the medical event, but indicated that surgery may be required in the future. The authorized user physician discontinued further treatments and plans to follow-up on the patient clinically. The NRC-contracted medical consultant expects some necrosis to fatty tissue in the overexposed region of the breast, within 2-4 months. *Cause(s)* —The medical event was caused by the dosimetrist's failure to enter the correct catheter length in preparing the treatment plan parameters for the HDR brachytherapy treatment. In addition, the licensee's written procedures for implementing HDR treatment plans did not require verification of the treatment plan parameters to ensure that they were correct. Actions Taken To Prevent Recurrence *Licensee* —The licensee initiated several immediate and long-term corrective actions to prevent recurrence. Specifically, those corrective actions included
(1)Revising the procedures for HDR treatments to include verification of the catheter length and input to the treatment planning computer by both the medical physicist and the authorized user physician,
(2)revising the treatment plan record to require that the authorized user physician and the medical physicist document the verification of the catheter length, and
(3)conducting in-house training to ensure that staff are aware of the new procedural steps and to ensure that the prescribing authorized user physician and the medical physicist actively participate in the training. *NRC* —On March 14, 2007, the NRC issued a Notice of Violation related to this event. NRC07-03 Medical Event at Hackley Hospital in Muskegon, Michigan *Date and Place* —January 8, 2007, Muskegon, Michigan. *Nature and Probable Consequences* —On January 8, 2007, Hackley Hospital (the licensee) notified the NRC of a medical event that occurred during a brachytherapy seed implant procedure to treat prostate cancer. The written directive prescribed a total dose of 120 Gy (12,000 rad) to the patient's prostate using 41 iodine-125 seeds as permanent implants. According to the licensee, because the patient moved, only 7 of the prescribed 41 seeds were delivered to the prostate (the intended site), and the other 34 seeds were delivered to an unintended site located approximately 4 cm (1.6 in) inferior to the prostate. As a result, the prostate received a dose of approximately 13 Gy (1,300 rad) rather than the prescribed dose of 120 Gy (12,000 rad) (~90% less than the prescribed dose). In addition, the unintended site received a dose of approximately 110 Gy (11,000 rad) and the patient's skin around the unintended site received a dose of approximately 2.4 Gy (240 rad). The patient and the referring physician were informed of this event. The patient will require further treatment via external beam therapy in order to deliver the appropriate dose to the prostate. The NRC-contracted medical consultant agreed with the licensee's dose estimate and concluded that the risk for impotence is somewhat increased by the additional radiation dose to the unintended site as a result of the medical event. There may also be some risk of perineal tissue fibrosis and skin irritation, although the risk may not be significant enough to cause clinical concerns. *Cause(s)* —The licensee determined the root cause of the event was a failure to identify the patient's movement before continuing with the procedure. In addition, the NRC inspector determined that the licensee failed to develop adequate written procedures to provide high confidence that each brachytherapy administration was in accordance with the authorized user physician's written directive, as required by 10 CFR 35.41. Specifically, the licensee's procedures did not include appropriate steps or guidance to ensure that radioactive sources were positioned in the patient in accordance with the written directive and treatment plan. Actions Taken To Prevent Recurrence *Licensee* —The licensee's corrective actions to prevent recurrence included revising its written procedure to ensure that sources are positioned in the patient in accordance with the written directive, and ensuring that the staff implements those revisions. *NRC* —On June 20, 2007, the NRC issued a Notice of Violation related to this event. NRC07-04 Medical Event at Kennedy Memorial Hospital in Turnersville, New Jersey *Date and Place* —October 25, 2006 (identified on December 8, 2006), Turnersville, New Jersey. *Nature and Probable Consequences* —Kennedy Memorial Hospital (the licensee) reported that a patient was prescribed a brachytherapy treatment of 145 Gy (14,500 rad) to the prostate gland for prostate cancer using 104 iodine-125 seeds, but instead received a dose of 145 Gy (14,500 rad) to an unintended treatment site. The brachytherapy seeds were implanted under ultrasound guidance; however, a post-treatment computed tomography scan showed that the implanted seeds were displaced inferior to the intended position, resulting in a dose of approximately 8 Gy (800 rad) delivered to the intended treatment site. The patient and the referring physician were informed of this event, and additional external beam radiation treatment was recommended. The NRC staff conducted a reactive onsite inspection on December 12, 2006. The NRC-contracted medical consultant reviewed the case and agreed with the licensee's analysis and conclusions, stating that no significant adverse health effect to the patient is expected. *Cause(s)* —The medical event was caused by the licensee's failure to accurately identify the position of the prostate during the intraoperative ultrasound guidance procedure. Actions Taken to Prevent Recurrence *Licensee* —The licensee revised its procedures, including the use of a contrast medium in the Foley catheter balloon to more clearly identify the bladder/prostate interface, and use of fluoroscopic imaging to confirm anatomical positioning and verify seed placement. *NRC* —There were no violations identified by the NRC. NRC07-05 Medical Event at the University of Virginia at Charlottesville, Virginia *Date and Place* —February 2-4, 2007, Charlottesville, Virginia. *Nature and Probable Consequences* —University of Virginia at Charlottesville (the licensee) reported that a patient was prescribed a brachytherapy treatment of 30 Gy (3,000 rad) for treatment of cancer of the cervix using cesium-137 sources. Instead, the patient received 7.7 Gy (770 rad) to the cervix and small volumes of the rectum and vaginal mucosa received doses greater than intended, ranging from 14.14 Gy to 26.77 Gy (1,414 rad to 2,677 rad). Upon removal of the implant, the licensee discovered that the applicator had been loaded with a plastic radioactive source carrier insert that was approximately 4 cm (1.6 in) shorter than the intended 24 cm (9.5 in) insert, which caused the sources to be displaced from the intended position. The patient and the referring physician were informed of this event, and additional external beam radiation treatment was recommended. The NRC staff conducted a reactive onsite inspection on February 12, 2007. The NRC-contracted medical consultant reviewed the case and agreed with the licensee's analysis and conclusions, stating that no significant adverse health effect to the patient is expected. *Cause(s)* —The medical event was caused by the licensee's failure to ensure that the insert was of the correct length before preloading the cesium-137 sources. Actions Taken To Prevent Recurrence *Licensee* —The licensee revised its procedures, including measuring the length of the insert before loading the source, and limiting the supply of inserts in the source loading room to inserts of the length used for standard applicator treatments. The licensee also implemented additional staff training. *NRC* —On May 7, 2007, the NRC issued a Notice of Violation related to this event. AS07-01 Medical Event at St. James Hospital and Health Center in Olympia Fields, Illinois *Date and Place* —November 29, 2006—December 20, 2006, Olympia Fields, Illinois. *Nature and Probable Consequences* —St. James Hospital and Health Center (the licensee) reported that a 75-year-old female patient received a dose to an unintended area of approximately 4 cm 2 (0.6 in 2 ) of 20 Gy (2,000 rad), which was prescribed to supplement surgery and external radiation treatments for cancer of the uterus. The treatment used a high dose-rate
(HDR)afterloader containing an iridium-192 source with an activity of 370 GBq (10 Ci). The source stopped 20 cm (7.9 in) short of the intended position; thus, the patient received none of the prescribed dose to the correct location. The patient and the referring physician were informed of this event. Over the next 4 weeks, the patient was treated for wet desquamation on both of her inner thighs, surrounded by a halo of erythema and the licensee continues to monitor the patient. *Cause(s)* —The medical event was caused by human error. The licensee entered an incorrect initial value into the treatment system, and the treatment plan was not reviewed by an authorized medical physicist during the subsequent three weekly treatment sessions. The error was identified during a chart audit before the next similar HDR treatment was planned. Actions Taken To Prevent Recurrence *Licensee* —The licensee reviewed previous administrations to confirm that this event was an isolated incident. The licensee also developed new procedures requiring additional quality assurance steps, including the presence of a medical physicist during treatments. In addition, licensee personnel received additional training on the revised treatment procedures. *State* —The State conducted an investigation on January 8, 2007, and issued a Notice of Violation. On March 8, 2007, the NRC-contracted medical consultant investigated the matter for the State and supported the licensee's conclusions. The State accepted the licensee's corrective actions on April 12, 2007. AS07-02 Medical Event at Aroostook Medical Center of Presque Isle, Maine *Date and Place* —January 16, 2007, Presque Isle, Maine. *Nature and Probable Consequences* —Aroostook Medical Center (the licensee) reported that a patient received 148 MBq (4 mCi) of iodine-131 for a whole body scan, instead of the prescribed 5.6 MBq (0.151 mCi) for a thyroid uptake scan. On March 6, 2007 during a follow-up visit with an endocrinologist, it was recognized that the wrong scan was performed. The patient and the referring physician were informed of this event. Using the methodology in NUREG-CR-6345, “Radiation Dose Estimates for Radiopharmaceuticals”, the licensee estimated that the administration of 148 MBq (4 mCi) resulted in a thyroid dose of 51.22 Sv (153.7 rem). The licensee concluded that no significant adverse health effect to the patient is expected. *Cause(s)* —The medical event was caused by human error. The licensee failed to verify the prescribed dosage for a specific patient directly with the referring physician. In addition, a written directive was not completed for this procedure. Actions Taken To Prevent Recurrence *Licensee* —Corrective actions taken by the licensee included revising procedures to improve communication with referring physicians, to allow the certified nuclear medicine technologist to speak directly with the referring physician or authorized user to confirm the type of test to be conducted. Also, written directives will be required for all administrations of iodine-131 in quantities greater than 1.11 MBq (30 μCi). *State* —The State Radiation Control Program
(RCP)performed an onsite investigation on May 24, 2007, and requested that the licensee take corrective actions to prevent recurrence. The RCP initially reviewed and accepted the licensee's proposed corrective actions during this investigation. The RCP issued a Notice of Violation on November 1, 2007, and awaits the licensee's response. AS07-03 Medical Event in New York *Date and Place* —March 7, 2007; (Licensee) New York. *Nature and Probable Consequences* —The licensee reported a brachytherapy medical event to the New York State Department of Health. The event involved a 31-year-old female patient with a history of vaginal cancer. The treatment involved the use of both cesium-137 and iridium-192 seeds. Each ribbon contained 8 seeds with an activity of 1.855 milligram radium equivalent (118 MBq or 3.19 mCi). The patient was to be administered a total dose of 25 Gy (2,500 rad) via interstitial brachytherapy, to be delivered to the 0.5 Gy (50 rad) isodose line for a total treatment time of 50 hours. On March 6, 2007, the iridium-192 seeds and the cesium-137 seeds were placed into the patient. Late in the morning of March 7, 2007, the medical physicist performed a manual check of the treatment plan calculations, and discovered that the hand calculations indicated a significantly higher dose rate than was generated using the treatment planning software. The ensuing investigations revealed that the original treatment plan was in error. On March 7, 2007, after 27 hours of treatment, the seeds were removed from the patient. The patient received an estimated dose of 45.9 Gy (4,590 rad) to the treatment site, rather than the intended 25 Gy (2,500 rad). The rectal dose was 73 Gy (7,300 rad). The radiation oncologist disclosed that the patient is at risk for radiation cystitis, rectal proctitis, and more importantly, fistula formation between the rectum and the vagina. The patient and the referring physician were informed of this event. The patient will be monitored closely over the next year by both her gynecologic oncologist and the radiation oncologist. The patient is being treated with broad spectrum antibiotics, along with daily treatments in a hyperbaric oxygen chamber. *Cause(s)* —The primary cause was the use of an inappropriate Dose Rate Factor
(DRF)in the treatment planning system. The value used corresponded to the DRF for air kerma, however, the seed strength entered was in milligram radium equivalent. Other causes and contributing factors included failure to check the treatment pre-plan before the seeds arrived although there was time to do so; failure to double-check the calculations either prior to the implant or shortly thereafter; use of a treatment planning system that underwent acceptance testing for cesium-137 and iodine-125, but not iridium-192; and lack of recent experience preparing a treatment plan using iridium-192. Neither the physicist nor the radiation oncologist had prepared a treatment plan using iridium-192 in 6 years. Actions Taken To Prevent Recurrence *Licensee* —The licensee changed its policy and procedures to require a check of calculations for any single-fraction brachytherapy treatment. *State* —The State plans to follow-up on the licensee's implementation of their new procedures during the next regularly scheduled inspection. AS07-04 Medical Event at Memorial Mission Hospital of Asheville, North Carolina *Date and Place* —April 24, 2007, Asheville, North Carolina. *Nature and Probable Consequences* —Memorial Mission Hospital (the licensee) reported that a 19-year-old female patient was prescribed a dose of 1.24 MBq (33.4 μCi) of iodine-131 for a diagnostic scan to assess the health of her thyroid, however, she was administered a dose of 1235.8 MBq (33,400 μCi) on April 24, 2007. The licensee discovered the event when the patient returned the next day for her uptake scan. The patient was placed on a gamma camera and given a whole body scan. The spectrum was identified as iodine-131 and the uptake was concentrated in the patient's neck area, consistent with a thyroid uptake. As a result, the patient received a dose to the thyroid of approximately 287.3 Gy (28,728 rad). The patient and the referring physician were informed of this event. The patient received an ablative quantity of radioactive iodine and initially showed classic signs of thyroidoitis, including inflammation, swelling, pain, and difficulty swallowing. The patient has recently started taking a synthetic thyroid hormone. *Cause(s)* —The radiopharmacy provided the hospital an incorrect and mislabeled dose. The hospital failed to conduct a proper and accurate receipt survey on the package when it arrived in the hospital's nuclear medicine department. The nuclear medicine technologist, who performed the package receipt survey, failed to investigate the higher-than-expected dose rate off the transport container to determine if anything unusual was present. The nuclear medicine technologist assigned to the patient failed to correctly and accurately assay the dose in the dose calibrator. A second nuclear medicine technologist who is supposed to perform a quality assurance
(QA)check of the dose calibrator reading, taken by the nuclear medicine technologist assigned to the patient, failed to correctly and accurately read the dose calibrator. The nuclear medicine technologist assigned to the patient failed to recognize that the number of counts obtained from the neck phantom used for the uptake scan baseline was unusually high for the quantity of radioactive material prescribed for the patient. Actions Taken To Prevent Recurrence *Licensee* —The licensee ceased purchasing radiopharmaceuticals from the radiopharmacy that provided the incorrect and mislabeled dose. The licensee set aside a designated area for receiving shipments of radiopharmaceuticals and posted a list of expected dose rates per shipment (based upon contents of the shipment). The licensee redesigned the patient administration log to serve as a check list for QA, instituted procedural changes to include a one-meter survey of each diagnostic capsule while it is being counted in the neck phantom prior to administration, and implemented updated training to acquaint all nuclear medicine technologists with these new policies. *State* —The State radiation control agency conducted an investigation into this incident assisted by the State board of pharmacy. The licensee's actions to prevent recurrence will be inspected at their next regularly scheduled inspection. AS07-05 Medical Event at University of Washington Harborview Gamma Knife of Seattle, Washington *Date and Place* —November 16, 2006, Seattle, Washington. *Nature and Probable Consequences* —University of Washington Harborview Gamma Knife (the licensee) reported that a patient who was prescribed to receive 18 Gy (1,800 rad) during a gamma knife treatment actually received 28 Gy (2,800 rad). The gamma knife contained 267.7 TBq (7,236 Ci) of cobalt-60. The patient and the referring physician were informed of this event. The licensee concluded that no significant adverse health effect to the patient is expected. *Cause(s)* —The cause of the incident was determined to be human error. The prescribing physician prescribed 18 Gy (1,800 rad) and erroneously entered 28 Gy (2,800 rad). The physician entered the prescribed value into the computer treatment planning system, rather than having the medical physicist enter the value as is the usual procedure, resulting in a failure to follow an established procedure. Actions Taken To Prevent Recurrence *Licensee* —Corrective actions taken by the licensee included a verification process to ensure that the prescribed treatment value is transferred from the treatment planning computer to the gamma knife computer prior to patient therapy. Also, a treatment plan signed by the treating oncologist, physicist, and neurosurgeon is now required. In addition, the treating oncologist and physicist will verify and initial the prescribed dose and isodose treatment parameters prior to patient therapy. *State* —The State reviewed the licensee's corrective actions and determined that the procedures were adequate to ensure that this type of event should not happen in the future. AS07-06 Medical Event at Physician Reliance of Fort Worth, Texas *Date and Place* —August 22, 2007, Fort Worth, Texas. *Nature and Probable Consequences* —Physician Reliance (the licensee, dba Texas Oncology at Klabzuba) reported that a patient who was being treated for lung cancer, with a high dose-rate
(HDR)afterloader and an iridium-192 source, received 2,500 cGy (2,500 rad) during the first fraction, instead of the prescribed dose of 500 cGy (500 rad). The patient was prescribed to receive five fractions with 500 cGy (500 rad) per fraction over five weeks. The incident was discovered following an independent physicist's review of the treatment plan. The patient and the referring physician were informed of this event. The patient's pulmonologist concluded that no significant adverse health effect to the patient is expected. *Cause(s)* —The incident occurred as a result of the incorrect isodose line being chosen and entered into the treatment planning system. The oncologist signed and approved the treatment plan and the radiation safety office performed a second calculation to check the treatment plan. The treatment planning system then normalized the calculations to the incorrect isodose line and delivered the resulting treatment. The calculation error was identified by an independent physicist prior to administration of the second fraction. Actions Taken To Prevent Recurrence *Licensee* —The licensee's corrective action was to change their procedure to include a second check by a licensed medical physicist of all treatment plans. *State* —The State issued two violations related to this event:
(1)A violation of 25 Texas Administrative Code
(TAC)289.256(p)(4)(A) and
(B)was cited because the procedure as implemented was insufficient to ensure that a second check of the printed output of the treatment plan was performed to verify the accuracy of the planned treatment factors prior to treatment; and
(2)a violation of 25 TAC 289.256(o)(1) and 289.256(p)(1) was cited because the instructions of obtaining the authorized physician's signed and dated written directive for each therapeutic administration were not followed. In addition, the State reviewed the licensee's corrective action of changing their procedures to include a second check by a licensed medical physicist of all treatment plans. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day of May 2008. For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary of the Commission. [FR Doc. E8-11666 Filed 5-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-57829; File No. SR-Amex-2007-107] Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment Nos. 3 and 4 Thereto, Relating to Section 31 Related Fees May 16, 2008. On October 2, 2007, the American Stock Exchange LLC (“Amex” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”), pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 a proposal to allow member firms to voluntarily submit, during a six-month period after the effective date of this proposal, funds previously accumulated by the member firms pursuant to Rule 393. In addition, the proposed rule change would allow the Exchange to use accumulated funds to pay its current section 31 fees or, to the extent of any surplus, offset other Exchange regulatory costs. The Amex filed Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change on March 19, 2008. 3 The Amex filed Amendment No. 3 to the proposed rule change on April 7, 2008. 4 The proposed rule change was published for comment in the ** Federal Register ** on April 16, 2008. 5 The Amex filed Amendment No. 4 to the proposed rule change on May 15, 2008. 6 The Commission received no comment letters regarding the proposed rule change. This order approves the proposed rule change, as modified. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 The Amex previously filed and withdrew Amendment No. 1 sto the proposed rule change. 4 Amendment No. 3 replaced all previous amendments in their entirety, added new effective dates of the proposed rule change, would eliminate non-substantive and extraneous text from proposed Commentary .01 to Rule 393. 5 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57641 (April 9, 2008), 73 FR 20724. 6 Amendment No. 4 makes minor changes, discussed in Amendment No. 3, to the proposed rule text to reflect that the date of effectiveness of the proposed rule change would be the date the Commission order approving the proposed rule change is published in the **Federal Register** and that the effectiveness of Commentary .01 to Rule 393, once approved, would be for a period of six months. Amendment No. 4 is a technical amendment not subject to notice and comment. Pursuant to section 31 of the Act 7 and Rule 31 thereunder, 8 national securities exchanges and associations (collectively “SROs”) are required to pay a transaction fee to the Commission that is designed to recover the costs related to the government's supervision and regulation of the securities markets and securities professionals. To offset this obligation, the Amex assesses its clearing and self-clearing members a regulatory fee in accordance with Rule 393, which mirrors section 31 in both scope and amount. Clearing members may in turn seek to charge a fee to their customers or correspondent firms. Any allocation of the fee between a clearing member and its correspondent firm or customer is the responsibility of the clearing member. 7 15 U.S.C. 78ee. 8 17 CFR 240.31. Reconciling the amounts reported to the Amex and the amounts collected from the customers historically had been difficult for member firms, causing surpluses to accumulate at some member firms (referred to as “accumulated funds”). These accumulated funds were not remitted to the Amex by certain members, despite the fact that these charges may have been previously identified as “Section 31 Fees” or “SEC Fees” by the firms. 9 In addition, since the Amex uses a “self-reporting” methodology for its members to report and remit amounts payable pursuant to Rule 393, the Amex has and continues to accumulate amounts in excess of the amounts paid by the Amex to the Commission pursuant to section 31 and Rule 31 (“Exchange accumulated funds”). 9 The Commission stated in its release adopting new Rule 31 and Rule 31T that “it is misleading to suggest that a customer or [SRO] member incurs an obligation to the Commission under section 31.” Securities Exchange Act Release No. 49928 (June 28, 2004), 69 FR 41060, 41072 (July 7, 2004). In response to this statement, the Exchange issued a notice to members regarding its Rule 393 Fee and the Commission's “Section 31 Fee,” and provided guidance for members and member organizations that choose to charge their customers fees. *See* Amex Notice REG 2004-42 Finance (October 29, 2004). The Exchange is proposing a new Commentary to Rule 393 that will allow firms, on a one-time-only basis, voluntarily to remit historically accumulated funds to the Exchange. These funds then would be used to pay the Exchange's current Section 31 fees in conformity with prior representations made by member firms. In addition, a member or member organization may designate all or part of the Exchange-accumulated excess held by the Exchange and allocated to such member be used by the Exchange in accordance with the new Commentary to Rule 393. Finally, to the extent the payment of these historically accumulated funds or Exchange accumulated funds is in excess of the Section 31 fees due the Commission from the Amex, such surplus shall be used by the Exchange to offset regulatory costs. The Amex proposes that the effective date of the proposed rule change would be the date the Commission Order approving the proposed rule filing is published in the **Federal Register** and the effectiveness of Commentary .01 to Rule 393, once approved, would be for a period of six months. After carefully considering the proposal, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange. 10 The Commission previously found a similar proposal from another SRO to be consistent with the Act. 11 The Commission is not aware of any issue that should cause it to revisit that finding or preclude the Commission from approving the Amex proposal on the same basis. The Commission notes that, because the program is voluntary, it imposes no obligation on any Amex member that believes that accumulated funds should be retained or disposed of in another manner. 10 In approving this proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. *See* 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 11 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55886 (June 8, 2007), 72 FR 32935 (SR-NASD-2007-027). *It is therefore ordered,* pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 12 that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-AMEX-2007-107), as modified by Amendment Nos. 3 and 4 thereto, be, and hereby is, approved. 12 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 13 13 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-11522 Filed 5-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Release No. 34-57820; File No. SR-FINRA-2008-017] Self-Regulatory Organizations: Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Section 1(a) of Article III of the FINRA By-Laws May 15, 2008. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on May 7, 2008, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) (f/k/a National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (“NASD”)) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been substantially prepared by FINRA. This order provides notice of the proposed rule change and approves the proposed rule change on an accelerated basis. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change FINRA is proposing to amend Section 1(a) of Article III of the FINRA By-Laws, to interpret the reference to a “registered broker” in Section 1(a) of Article III of the FINRA By-Laws to include any bank exempted from the definition of “broker” under Section 3(a)(4)(E) of the Act 3 as of the date of filing of the proposed rule change. The proposed rule change is submitted in furtherance of the consolidation of the member firm regulatory functions of NASD and NYSE Regulation, Inc. (“NYSE Regulation”). There are no changes to the text of FINRA rules as a result of the proposed rule change. 3 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(4)(E). II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, FINRA included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item III below. FINRA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose On July 30, 2007, NASD and NYSE Regulation consolidated their member firm regulation operations into a combined organization, FINRA. 4 To achieve the consolidation's goal to eliminate duplicative member firm regulation and enable FINRA to meet its new regulatory responsibilities, the NYSE amended NYSE Rule 2(b) to require FINRA membership as a condition of being an NYSE member organization (“Mandatory FINRA Membership filing”). 5 Moreover, in furtherance of the consolidation, FINRA adopted NASD IM-1013-1 to enable eligible NYSE member organizations to become FINRA members through an expedited process. 6 4 On July 26, 2007, the Commission approved amendments to the NASD By-Laws to implement governance and related changes to accommodate the consolidation of the member firm regulatory functions of NASD and NYSE Regulation. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56145 (July 26, 2007), 72 FR 42169 (Aug. 1, 2007) (File No. SR-NASD-2007-023). The Commission also approved a plan by FINRA and NYSE Regulation to allocate regulatory responsibility relating to the NYSE member firm regulation rules to FINRA. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56148 (July 26, 2007), 72 FR 42146 (Aug. 1, 2007) (File No. 4-544). 5 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56654 (Oct. 12, 2007), 72 FR 59129 (Oct. 18, 2007) (File No. SR-NYSE-2007-67); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56953 (Dec. 12, 2007), 72 FR 71990 (Dec. 19, 2007) (extending grace period for NYSE-only member organizations to apply for and be approved as FINRA members to June 30, 2008). *See also* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56751 (Nov. 6, 2007), 72 FR 64098 (Nov. 14, 2007) (File No. SR-FINRA-2007-19). 6 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56653 (Oct. 12, 2007); 72 FR 59127 (Oct. 18, 2007) (File No. SR-NASD-2007-056). NYSE Rule 2(b) expressly permits entities that are exempt from registration as brokers or dealers pursuant to the Act to become NYSE member organizations. 7 In contrast, Section 1(a) of Article III of the FINRA By-Laws addresses those “registered” brokers, dealers, municipal securities brokers or dealers, or government securities brokers or dealers that are eligible to become members of FINRA. Accordingly, in furtherance of the consolidation, the proposed rule change would allow FINRA to treat any NYSE member organization that, as of the date of filing of the proposed rule change, is a bank exempt from the definition of broker under Section 3(a)(4)(E) of the Act as a registered broker for purposes of the FINRA By-Laws, thereby allowing any such bank to be eligible to become a FINRA member. 8 7 *See also* NYSE Rule 346(a). 8 This category of NYSE member organizations is limited to one entity. FINRA believes this interpretation is necessary notwithstanding the prohibitions of Section 15A(g)(1) of the Act, 9 which requires a registered securities association to deny membership to any person who is not a registered broker or dealer. The Commission has already recognized the important benefits of eliminating duplicative member firm regulation through the consolidation of the member firm regulatory operations of NASD and NYSE Regulation. Interpreting the reference to registered broker in Section 1(a) of Article III of the FINRA By-Laws to include any bank exempted from the definition of “broker” under Section 3(a)(4)(E) of the Act for the narrow purposes of FINRA membership will allow FINRA to consider all NYSE members for membership and to assume responsibility for member firm regulation of such entities. 9 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(g)(1). Any bank becoming a FINRA member pursuant to this interpretation, and its associated persons, would be required to comply with the FINRA By-Laws, Schedules to the By-Laws, and all applicable FINRA rules, 10 excluding the following:
(a)The bank would not be required to be a registered broker-dealer; and
(b)as long as the bank remains subject to bank capital adequacy requirements, FINRA would not require it to comply with capital requirements of either the NASD or the consolidated FINRA rules. FINRA would provide any such bank 180 days following approval of its membership application in which to achieve compliance with the NASD rules governing member conduct. FINRA also would require the bank to file a Form BD for FINRA purposes only 11 and the information provided on the form would be available via BrokerCheck pursuant to NASD IM-8310-2. 12 The bank, as part of the application process, also would be required to submit an amended Form U4 for each associated person denoting any registration categories that are recognized jointly by FINRA and NYSE ( *e.g.* , General Securities Representative (Series 7)). 10 The FINRA rulebook currently consists of the NASD rules and certain incorporated NYSE rules. The incorporated NYSE rules apply solely to those members of FINRA that are also members of NYSE on or after July 30, 2007, until such time as FINRA adopts a consolidated rulebook applicable to all of its members. 11 FINRA understands that a bank relying on Section 3(a)(4)(E) of the Act is not required to file Form BD with the Commission. 12 FINRA will need to implement certain systems changes to accommodate the filing of a Form BD by any bank that becomes a member of FINRA pursuant to this interpretation. Any bank applying for FINRA membership pursuant to this interpretation would not be eligible to rely on the waive-in process set forth in NASD IM-1013-1, since that process was primarily designed for those NYSE member organizations whose business activities are limited to “permitted floor activities” as defined in NASD IM-1013-1. Rather, a bank applying for FINRA membership pursuant to this interpretation would be required to apply for and receive approval pursuant to the application process described in NASD Rule 1013 (New Membership Application and Interview). FINRA recognizes that NYSE has a comprehensive membership application and review process based on similar principles and standards to that of FINRA, and thus would work expeditiously to consider for approval any application pursuant to this interpretation. In addition, similar to those NYSE member organizations that become FINRA members pursuant to the waive-in process, any bank relying on this interpretation would not be assessed the fee set forth in Section 4(b)(1) to Schedule A of the FINRA By-Laws for any initial Form U4 filed by the applicant with FINRA for the registration of any representative or principal associated with the firm at the time it submits its application for FINRA membership. Also, the bank would not be assessed the membership application fee set forth in Section 4(e) to Schedule A of the FINRA By-Laws. FINRA believes these fee waivers are appropriate, since NYSE mandated FINRA membership in furtherance of the consolidation and because the application review process will not require the same resources as when a new applicant that is not already a member of NYSE seeks membership. The effective date of the proposed rule change would be the date of Commission approval. 2. Statutory Basis FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 15A(b) of the Act, including Section 15A(b)(6), which requires, among other things, that FINRA rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. FINRA believes that the proposed rule change will further facilitate the consolidation of the member firm regulation functions of FINRA and NYSE Regulation, resulting in more effective and efficient regulation of all brokers, thereby enhancing investor protection. B. *Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition* FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. *Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others* Written comments were neither solicited nor received. III. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number SR-FINRA-2008-017 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2008-017. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m.. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of FINRA. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2008-017 and should be submitted on or before June 13, 2008. IV. Commission Findings After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder. 13 As such, the Commission finds the proposal to be consistent with the objectives of Section 15A of the Act, 14 in that it is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, and in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The proposed rule change furthers the purposes of the consolidation by recognizing the unique status of any NYSE member organization that is exempt from the definition of broker under Section 3(a)(4)(E) of the Act. Moreover, the proposed rule change does not propose any substantive amendments to existing rules. 13 In approving this rule change, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. *See* 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 14 15 U.S.C. 78 *o* -3(b)(6). The Commission also finds good cause for approving the proposed rule change prior to the 30th day after its publication in the **Federal Register** . Accordingly, the Commission believes good cause exists, consistent with Sections 15A(b)(5) and 19(b) of the Act to approve the proposed rule change on an accelerated basis. V. Conclusion *It is therefore ordered* , pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 15 that the proposed rule change (SR-FINRA-2008-017) be, and hereby is, approved on an accelerated basis. 15 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 16 16 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-11529 Filed 5-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-57831; File No. SR-ISE-2008-39] Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend its Schedule of Fees To Establish Fees for Transactions in Options on Five Premium Products May 16, 2008. Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on May 9, 2008, International Securities Exchange, LLC (“ISE” or the “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by ISE. The Exchange has designated this proposal as one establishing or changing a member due, fee, or other charge imposed by ISE under section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder, 4 which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change ISE is proposing to amend its Schedule of Fees to establish fees for transactions in options on five Premium Products. 5 The text of the proposed rule change is available at *http://www.ise.com,* the principal offices of the Exchange, and the Commission's Public Reference Room. 5 Premium Products is defined in the Schedule of Fees as the products enumerated therein. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, ISE included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. ISE has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The Exchange is proposing to amend its Schedule of Fees to establish fees for transactions in options on the CurrencyShares SM Australian Dollar Trust (“FXA”), the CurrencyShares SM British Pound Sterling Trust (“FXB”), the CurrencyShares SM Euro Trust (“FXE”), the CurrencyShares SM Japanese Yen Trust (“FXY”) 6 and the iShares MSCI Taiwan Index Fund (“EWT”). 7 The Exchange represents that FXA, FXB, FXE, FXY and EWT are eligible for options trading because they constitute “Exchange-Traded Fund Shares,” as defined by ISE Rule 502(h). 6 CurrencyShares SM Australian Dollar Trust, CurrencyShares SM British Pound Sterling Trust, CurrencyShares SM Euro Trust, and CurrencyShares SM Japanese Yen Trust are service marks of their respective owner(s). Rydex Distributors, Inc., an affiliate of Rydex Investments and Rydex Specialized Products, is the distributor of Rydex funds. Rydex Specialized Products LLC, d/b/a Rydex Investments (“Rydex”), is the sponsor of the CurrencyShares SM Australian Dollar Trust (“FXA”), the CurrencyShares SM British Pound Sterling Trust (“FXB”), the CurrencyShares SM Euro Trust (“FXE”) and the CurrencyShares SM Japanese Yen Trust (“FXY”). Rydex has not licensed or authorized ISE to
(i)engage in the creation, listing, provision of a market for trading, marketing, and promotion of options on FXA, FXB, FXE and FXY or
(ii)to use and refer to any trademarks or service marks in connection with the listing, provision of a market for trading, marketing, and promotion of options on FXA, FXB, FXE and FXY or with making disclosures concerning options on FXA, FXB, FXE and FXY under any applicable federal or state laws, rules or regulations. Rydex does not sponsor, endorse, or promote such activity by ISE, and is not affiliated in any manner with ISE. 7 iShares® is a registered trademark of Barclays Global Investors, N.A. (“BGI”), a majority owned subsidiary of Barclays Bank PLC. “MSCI Taiwan Index” is a service mark of Morgan Stanley Capital International (“MSCI”) and has been licensed for use for certain purposes by BGI. All other trademarks and service marks are the property of their respective owners. iShares MSCI Taiwan Index Fund (“EWT”) is not sponsored, endorsed, issued, sold or promoted by MSCI. BGI and MSCI have not licensed or authorized ISE to
(i)engage in the creation, listing, provision of a market for trading, marketing, and promotion of options on EWT or
(ii)to use and refer to any of their trademarks or service marks in connection with the listing, provision of a market for trading, marketing, and promotion of options on EWT or with making disclosures concerning options on EWT under any applicable federal or state laws, rules or regulations. BGI and MSCI do not sponsor, endorse, or promote such activity by ISE, and are not affiliated in any manner with ISE. All of the applicable fees covered by this filing are identical to fees charged by the Exchange for all other Premium Products. Specifically, the Exchange is proposing to adopt an execution fee and a comparison fee for all transactions in options on FXA, FXB, FXE, FXY and EWT. 8 The amount of the execution fee and comparison fee for products covered by this filing shall be $0.15 and $0.03 per contract, respectively, for all Public Customer Orders 9 and Firm Proprietary orders. The amount of the execution fee and comparison fee for all ISE Market Maker transactions shall be equal to the execution fee and comparison fee currently charged by the Exchange for ISE Market Maker transactions in equity options. 10 Finally, the amount of the execution fee and comparison fee for all non-ISE Market Maker transactions shall be $0.37 and $0.03 per contract, respectively. 11 Further, since options on FXA, FXB, FXE, FXY and EWT are multiply-listed, the Exchange's Payment for Order Flow fee shall apply to all these products. The Exchange believes the proposed rule change will further the Exchange's goal of introducing new products to the marketplace that are competitively priced. 8 These fees will be charged only to Exchange members. Under a pilot program that is set to expire on July 31, 2008, these fees will also be charged to Linkage Principal Orders (“Linkage P Orders”) and Linkage Principal Acting as Agent Orders (“Linkage P/A Orders”). The amount of the execution fee charged by the Exchange for Linkage P Orders and Linkage P/A Orders is $0.24 per contract side and $0.15 per contract side, respectively. *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56128 (July 24, 2007), 72 FR 42161 (August 1, 2007) (SR-ISE-2007-55). 9 Public Customer Order is defined in Exchange Rule 100(a)(39) as an order for the account of a Public Customer. Public Customer is defined in Exchange Rule 100(a)(38) as a person or entity that is not a broker or dealer in securities. 10 The execution fee is currently between $.21 and $.12 per contract side, depending on the Exchange Average Daily Volume, and the comparison fee is currently $.03 per contract side. 11 The amount of the execution and comparison fee for non-ISE Market Maker transactions executed in the Exchange's Facilitation and Solicitation Mechanisms is $0.16 and $0.03 per contract, respectively. Further, the Exchange proposes to remove IXK from its Schedule of Fees. 12 12 This Premium Product was recently delisted and no longer trades on the Exchange. Thus, the Exchange proposes to remove it from its fee schedule. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the objectives of section 6 of the Act, 13 in general, and furthers the objectives of section 6(b)(4), 14 in particular, in that it is designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among its members and other persons using its facilities. 13 15 U.S.C. 78f. 14 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested parties. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action The foregoing proposed rule change has been designated as a fee change pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act 15 and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) 16 thereunder, because it establishes or changes a due, fee, or other charge imposed on members by ISE. Accordingly, the proposal is effective upon filing with the Commission. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. 15 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii). 16 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2). IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov* . Please include File Number SR-ISE-2008-39 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2008-39. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make publicly available. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2008-39 and should be submitted on or before *June 13, 2008* . For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 17 17 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-11523 Filed 5-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-57833; File No. SR-NYSE-2008-35] Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Section 703.21 of the Listed Company Manual Relating to Equity-Linked Debt Securities May 19, 2008. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on May 2, 2008, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared substantially by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons and is granting accelerated approval to the proposed rule change. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange proposes to amend Section 703.21 of the Listed Company Manual (“Manual”) to clarify the application of Rule 19b-4(e) under the Act 3 to the listing of equity-linked debt securities (“ELDS”). The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and *http://www.nyse.com.* 3 17 CFR 240.19b-4(e). II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, NYSE included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item III below. NYSE has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose Section 703.21 of the Manual provides that the Exchange will consider listing ELDS that meet the criteria of Section 703.21. ELDS are non-convertible debt of an issuer where the value of the debt is based, at least in part, on the value of another issuer's common stock, non-convertible preferred stock, common units of a master limited partnership, or any other common equity security of a type classified for trading as stocks by the Exchange. The Exchange proposes to make explicit that Rule 19b-4(e) under the Act applies to the listing of ELDS that meet the criteria of paragraphs
(A)through
(D)of Section 703.21 of the Manual. The Exchange states that these criteria, therefore, constitute “generic” listing criteria for ELDS, and the Exchange would file an appropriate Form 19b-4(e) with the Commission within five days of listing a series of ELDS under the generic listing criteria. The proposed rule change would also provide that the Exchange may submit a rule filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act 4 to permit the listing and trading of ELDS that do not otherwise meet the standards set forth in paragraphs
(A)through
(D)of Section 703.21 of the Manual. 4 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). The Exchange also proposes to amend paragraph
(D)of Section 703.21 to refer to the Commission's Division of Trading and Markets. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) 5 of the Act, in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5), 6 in particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change clarifies the application of Rule 19b-4(e) under the Act to the listing of ELDS. This facilitates the listing and trading of such securities on the Exchange, thereby enhancing competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace. 5 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 6 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition NYSE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change. III. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number SR-NYSE-2008-35 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2008-35. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2008-35 and should be submitted on or before June 13, 2008. IV. Commission's Findings and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of the Proposed Rule Change After careful consideration, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange. 7 In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 8 which requires that the rules of an exchange be designed, among other things, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. 7 In approving this rule change, the Commission notes that it has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. *See* 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). The Commission finds good cause for approving this proposal before the 30th day after the publication of notice thereof in the **Federal Register** . The proposal seeks to clarify that the Exchange's listing and trading of ELDS under Section 703.21 of the Manual is subject to Rule 19b-4(e) under the Act. The proposal also clarifies the process for listing and trading ELDS that do not meet the standards of paragraphs
(A)through
(D)of Section 703.12 of the Manual. The Commission does not believe that these clarifications raise any novel regulatory issues. Therefore, the Commission believes that accelerating approval of this proposal is appropriate and would ensure that the Exchange's rules clearly reflect the standards for listing and trading of ELDS and conform the NYSE's rules to those of other exchanges without delay. 9 9 *See e.g.* , Chicago Board Options Exchange Rule 31.5(I) and NYSE Arca Rule 5.2(j)(2). V. Conclusion *It is therefore ordered,* pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 10 that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSE-2008-35), be, and it hereby is, approved on an accelerated basis. 10 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 11 11 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-11550 Filed 5-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-57827; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2008-49] Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Rule 10.12 (Minor Rule Plan) and Underlying Rules May 15, 2008. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on May 14, 2008, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca” or the “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 10.12 (Minor Rule Plan) (“MRP”) and other related rules that underlie the minor rules violations, including Rules 9.2(c) (Customer Records), 11.1 (Adherence to Law), and 11.18 (Supervision). The text of the proposed rule change is available at NYSE Arca's principal office, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and *http://www.nyse.com.* II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, NYSE Arca included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The Minor Rule Plan fosters compliance with applicable rules and also helps to reduce the number and extent of rule violations committed by Options Trading Permit (“OTP”) Holders, OTP Firms, and associated persons. The Exchange's enforcement staff has found that the MRP is particularly useful in reducing both the number and extent of rule violations because Rule 10.12 enables staff to promptly impose a limited but meaningful financial penalty soon after the violations are detected. The prompt imposition of a financial penalty helps to quickly educate and improve the conduct of OTP Holders, OTP Firms, and associated persons that have engaged in inadvertent or otherwise minor violations of the Exchange's rules, particularly those parties who may not pay attention to mere warnings that they are violating Exchange rules. By promptly imposing a meaningful financial penalty for such violations, the MRP focuses on correcting conduct before it gives rise to more serious enforcement action. The Exchange has observed that new and altered patterns of activity by OTP Holders and Firms as well as numerous additions and amendments to other Exchange rules have created the need for revisions to the MRP as well as the underlying rules, which are described in greater detail below. The changes are designed to update Rule 10.12 to encompass new types of violations as well as update or otherwise correct existing MRP provisions and further clarify the circumstances when use of the MRP is appropriate. The MRP will continue to be used for inadvertent and occasional rule violations. Serious violations of Exchange rules will continue to be addressed through formal enforcement action. Rule 10.12—Minor Rule Plan Rule 10.12(e)—Minor Rule Plan The Exchange proposes to clarify that any person or organization found in violation of a minor rule under Rule 10.12 is not required to report such violation on SEC Form BD or Form U-4. Rule 10.12(h)—Minor Rule Plan: Options Floor Decorum and Minor Trading Rule Violations The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 10.12(h) to reflect recent changes in options trading requirements, remove obsolete rule references, and create consistency with other exchanges in the imposition of fines. In particular, the proposals include: • (h)(2)—Amended to reflect that the violation includes all of Rule 6.67. • (h)(9)—Amended to reflect that OTP Holders and Firms are no longer required to be physically present on the trading floor. • (h)(12)—Amended to reflect that Rule 6.2 Commentary .02 is not related to the use of hand signals and also to remove an obsolete reference to Rule 6.67. • (h)(13)—Amended to reflect reference to Rule 6.2(h) relating to registration of telephones on the trading floor. • (h)(14)—Amended to remove the reference to Rule 6.69 because it is no longer relevant to the violation. • (h)(15)—Removed because the provision is redundant with subsection (16). • (h)(16)—Amended to consolidate certain violations of Rule 6.2. • (h)(18)—Removed because the provision is redundant with subsection (16). • (h)(20)—Amended to remove an obsolete rule reference due to all orders being electronically stamped. • (h)(21)—Amended to include position and exercise limit violations. • (h)(22)—Amended to remove the violation because it is incorporated in subsection (21). • (h)(23)—Amended to remove reference to Rule 6.38(c) because the rule no longer exists. • (h)(28)—Amended to remove reference to Rule 6.37(d) because the rule no longer relates to Market Makers' obligations to trade or update an existing market. • (h)(29)—Amended to include failure to comply with certain trade-through provisions. • (h)(30)—Amended
(i)to delete a reference to the Trading Crowd/LMM Questionnaire, which is no longer administered by the Exchange and
(ii)to include violations of Authorized Trader Rules as contained in Rules 6.34 and 6.34A. • (h)(34)—Amended to include order exposure requirement violations. • (h)(35)—Amended to include unlocking or uncrossing a market violations. • (h)(36)—Amended to clarify present rule and reflect correct rule reference. • (h)(37)—Amended to reflect that Market Makers no longer have a one-month grace period prior to applying for a primary appointment and reflect current rule. • (h)(38)—Amended to reflect correct rule text and expand scope of violation. • (h)(39)—Amended to reflect correct rule text. • (h)(40)—Amended to reflect correct rule reference. • (h)(42)—Amended to reflect correct rule reference. • (h)(43)—Amended to remove obsolete rule. Exchange systems now have a filter that electronically prevents Market Makers from entering quotes in issues outside their primary appointment. • (h)(45)—Amended to reflect the addition of proposed Rule 11.1(b) and to remove obsolete rule text. • (h)(46)—Amended to reflect correct rule reference. Rule 10.12(j)—Minor Rule Plan: Record Keeping and Other Minor Rule Violations The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 10.12(j) to add several minor violations related to record keeping and other violations. Exchange staff frequently encounters inadvertent or otherwise minor violations of Rules 2.17, 2.23, 2.25, 9.2(a)-(c), 9.17, 11.3, 11.18(a)-(c), and 11.19. Such minor violations do not give rise to formal enforcement action. However, staff believes that it can further enhance compliance with these rules by imposing MRP fines, which will draw OTP Holders' and Firms' attention to the need for improved compliance by promptly imposing meaningful, but limited financial penalties for violations. 10.12(k)—Minor Rule Plan: Recommended Fine Schedule The Exchange proposes to change the procedure set forth in the MRP fine schedules to escalate MRP fine levels in cases involving multiple instances of the same offense. This change will enhance the fair administration of the MRP in the context of higher speed and volume of electronic trading on the NYSE Arca Marketplace. Currently, the MRP Recommended Fine Schedule sets forth an initial MRP fine for a “First Violation,” as well as a higher level for a “Second Violation” and a still higher level for a “Third Violation.” This escalation plan, which predates the widespread use of electronic trading on the Exchange, has led to several difficulties when applied to the much greater speed and volume of electronic trading. While the fine escalation is meant to deter repeat offenses, it often fails to deliver this effect, because OTP Holders and Firms engaged in the high speed and volume of electronic trading can frequently incur “second” and “third” offenses before they are sanctioned or even notified of the initial violation. For the same reason, these OTP Holders and Firms complain that it is unfair for them to incur escalated fine levels for second and third violations before they learn of their first violations. Additionally, the current fine schedule does not allow an MRP sanction for any more than three violations. In some cases, this is appropriate, but in other cases, it makes sense to impose an MRP fine for the fourth violation as for the first three. The MRP can best assist the Exchange's regulatory and enforcement efforts if it provides Exchange officials with discretion to determine how to address particular instances of multiple violations, rather than implicitly requiring formal enforcement action whenever there are more than three violations. To address these concerns, the Exchange proposes to modify the Recommended Fine Schedules in NYSE Arca Rule 10.12(k) so that MRP fines are escalated based not on the number of “violations,” but upon the number of times the Exchange has imposed one or more MRP fines upon a Permit Holder for the violation of a particular rule. The three current column headers in the Fine Schedules that specify different fine levels for first, second, and third “violations” will be replaced with “First Level,” “Second Level,” and “Third Level.” With this change, the Fine Schedule will continue to specify the fine to be imposed for each violation, but the first time a Permit Holder is fined under the MRP for the violation of a given rule, the fine for each violation will be imposed at the “First Level,” whether there is one or more than one such violation. *Example:* Due to a newly-employed floor broker's misunderstanding the requirements of NYSE Arca Rule 6.47 and not being corrected for an entire afternoon, the employing OTP Holder, which has no previous rules violations, executes three cross transactions that afternoon on the Exchange that do not satisfy all the requirements of NYSE Arca Rule 6.47. Under the current MRP Fine Schedule in NYSE Arca Rule 10.12(i)(3), the OTP Holder would be charged under the MRP with a first violation fine of $1,000, a second violation fine of $2,500, and a third violation fine of $3,500, for a total MRP fine of $7,000. The escalation for the second and third offenses would be imposed under the current Fine Schedule even though all the violations occurred in the same afternoon, and the second and third violations occurred before the OTP Holder became aware of the first violation. By contrast, under the change in the Fine Schedule proposed here, the fines no longer escalate based upon the number of offenses, but instead based on the number of times the OTP Holder has been fined for the same offense. Because the OTP Holder here had not previously been fined for violations of Rule 6.47, the OTP Holder would receive the “First Level” of $1,000 per violation for each of the three violations, for a total MRP fine of $3,000. If the OTP Holders and Firms were later fined again under the MRP for more such violations, the fine for each violation would then be $2,500. This proposed new procedure for escalating MRP fines is largely the same as the escalation procedure specified by the New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE”) in its “List of Exchange Rule Violations and Fines” for imposing summary fines pursuant to NYSE Rule 476A. It will continue to be the case that nothing in the MRP will require the imposition of a MRP fine when Exchange enforcement officials believe that repeat violations or other aggravating factors warrant formal enforcement action. Other Changes to Rule 10.12(k) The fines for the current and proposed minor rule violations in subsections
(h)and
(j)are reflected in the Recommend Fine Schedule in Rule 10.12(k). The Exchange staff believes that the proposed fines are fair in relation to the scope and occurrence of the MRP violation by OTP Holders and Firms. The Exchange has also proposed to amend Rules 10.12(k)(i) and 10.12(k)(iii) to include new footnotes 1 and 3 respectively. Rules 6.94(a) and
(c)require OTP Holders to avoid violations of the trade-through rules and, where such violation is unavoidable, to provide satisfaction orders. Proposed footnote 1 enables the Exchange to require that violators of these rules not only pay the specified MRP fine amounts for such violations, but also disgorge any quantifiable monetary gains attributable to these violations. The Exchange has based this proposed amendment on a very similar provision of the Boston Stock Exchange's MRP for violation of trade-through rules, which was recently approved by the Commission. 3 3 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55606 (April 10, 2007), 72 FR 19221 (April 17, 2007) (approving SR-BSE-2006-11). NYSE Arca Rule 2.23 (employee registration) requires OTP Holders and Firms to continually disclose to the Exchange through the registration process personnel who are responsible for trading decisions on behalf of the OTP Holders or Firms. By requiring such disclosure, Rule 2.23, like the trade-through rules, substantially protects the Exchange's ability to regulate its marketplace and help ensure marketplace integrity. Exchange staff proposes to include the back-payment of registration fees in addition to a MRP fine so that the MRP can effectively deter OTP Holders and Firms from trying to save money and effort by not registering their appropriate personnel, in the same way that the Boston Stock Exchange's MRP revision in SR-BSE-2006-11 4 deters trade-through violations by requiring the violator to pay not only the specified fine amount, but also any quantifiable monetary gain resulting from the violation. Specifically, the Exchange proposes footnote 3 to enable the Exchange to require violators of Rule 2.23 to pay not only the specified MRP fine amount, but also to remit all fees that should have been paid to the Exchange pursuant to compliance with Rule 2.23. 4 *See id.* In addition to the changes proposed to the MRP, the Exchange also proposes the following related changes. Rule 9.2(c)—Customer Records The Exchange proposes to change Rule 9.2(c) by adding the single word “current,” to clarify and reiterate the obligation that firms with customer accounts must not only keep records of their customer accounts, but also keep them current. Rule 11.1—Adherence to Law and Good Business Practices The Exchange proposes to clarify the language of the newly designated Rule 11.1(a) by substituting the word “just” for “fair.” The Exchange also proposes to add a new Rule 11.1(b) that will require all OTP Holders and Firms, their associated persons, and other participants to adhere to the principles of good business practice in the conduct of their business operations. This filing also proposes to make violations of Rule 11.1(b) eligible for MRP disposition. The proposed new Rule 11.1(b) is patterned on the current NYSE Rule 401(a). Like NYSE Rule 401(a), it encompasses miscellaneous conduct that is inconsistent with the maintenance of a fair and orderly marketplace or that otherwise violates good business practices without also showing the bad faith or unethical conduct that have been found to be essential elements of “conduct inconsistent with just and equitable principles of trade,” as that standard has been clarified in decisions such as *In re. Calvin David Fox.* 5 5 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 48731, 81 SEC Docket 1511-31 (October 31, 2003). Rule 11.18—Supervision The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 11.18 to remove language that limits the reach of its supervisory rules. The current language of Rule 11.18(b) provides that only OTP Holders and Firms for whom the Exchange is the Designated Examining Authority (“DEA”) are subject to its supervisory requirements. The amendment removes the language limiting the scope of the rule so that all OTP Holders and Firms, regardless of DEA, are subject to maintaining systems to supervise activities of their associated persons and the operations of their business. As noted above, this filing also proposes to make minor violations of Rule 11.18 eligible for disposition through an MRP fine. Exchange Market Regulation frequently encounters “minor” supervisory failures by OTP Holders and Firms, *i.e.* , supervisory failures whose consequences have not yet risen to a level justifying formal enforcement action, but which could have serious consequences if not remedied. By making such failures eligible for MRP fines, Exchange Market Regulation and Enforcement will have a greater ability to encourage OTP Holders and Firms to correct their supervisory problems before they lead to more serious violations. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act, 6 in general, and with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 7 in particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. 6 15 U.S.C. 78f. 7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others Written comments were neither solicited nor received. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** or within such longer period
(i)as the Commission may designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or
(ii)as to which NYSE Arca consents, the Commission will: A. By order approve such proposed rule change, or B. Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number SR-NYSEArca-2008-49 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2008-49. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of NYSE Arca. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2008-49 and should be submitted on or before June 13, 2008. For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 8 8 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-11530 Filed 5-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-57834; File No. SR-Phlx-2008-33] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto, Relating to Equity Linked Notes May 19, 2008. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on May 2, 2008, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (“Phlx” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared substantially by the Exchange. On May 16, 2008, the Exchange submitted Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as amended, from interested persons and is granting accelerated approval to the proposed rule change. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 803(h) to clarify that the listing and trading of Equity Linked Notes (“ELNs”) on the Exchange is subject to Rule 19b-4(e) under the Act. 3 The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and *http://www.phlx.com.* 3 17 CFR 240.19b-4(e). II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, Phlx included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item III below. Phlx has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. *Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change* 1. Purpose The Exchange states that the purpose of the proposed rule change is to clarify that the listing and trading of ELNs on the Exchange is subject to Rule 19b-4(e) under the Act. Rule 19b-4(e) under the Act permits an exchange to list and trade a new derivative securities product, such as an ELN, without filing a proposed rule change on Form 19b-4, if the exchange has, among other things, listing standards for the product class. 4 Rule 19b-4(e) further provides that an exchange shall file Form 19b-4(e) within five business days after commencement of trading a new derivative securities product. Therefore, upon the acceptance of an ELN for listing and trading on the Exchange pursuant to the listing standards in Rule 803(h), Phlx will file a Form 19b-4(e) with the Commission within five business days after the commencement of trading. 4 *See* 17 CFR 240.19b-4(e)(1). Phlx Rule 803(h) contains the listing standards for ELNs. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) 5 of the Act, in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5), 6 in particular, in that it is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest, by clarifying that the listing and trading of ELNs on the Exchange is subject to Rule 19b-4(e) under the Act. 5 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 6 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. *Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition* The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. *Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others* No written comments were either solicited or received. III. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number SR-Phlx-2008-33 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2008-33. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2008-33 and should be submitted on or before June 13, 2008. IV. Commission's Findings and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of the Proposed Rule Change After careful consideration, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange. 7 In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 8 which requires that the rules of an exchange be designed, among other things, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. 7 In approving this rule change, the Commission notes that it has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. *See* 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). The Commission finds good cause for approving this proposal before the 30th day after the publication of notice thereof in the **Federal Register** . The proposal seeks to clarify that the Exchange's listing and trading of ELNs under Rule 803(h) is subject to Rule 19b-4(e) under the Act. The Commission does not believe that this clarification raises any novel regulatory issues. Therefore, the Commission believes that accelerating approval of this proposal is appropriate and would ensure that the Exchange's rules clearly reflect the standards for listing and trading of ELNs and conform the Phlx's rules to those of other exchanges without delay. 9 9 *See e.g.* , Chicago Board Options Exchange Rule 31.5(I) and NYSE Arca Rule 5.2(j)(2). V. Conclusion *It is therefore ordered,* pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, 10 that the proposed rule change, as amended (SR-Phlx-2008-33), be, and it hereby is, approved on an accelerated basis. 10 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority. 11 11 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Florence E. Harmon, Deputy Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-11531 Filed 5-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION [Disaster Declaration #11247 and #11248]; Alabama Disaster #AL-00014 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of ALABAMA dated 05/15/2008. *Incident:* Severe Storms and Tornadoes. *Incident Period:* 05/11/2008. DATES: *Effective Date:* 05/15/2008. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:* 07/14/2008. *Economic Injury
(EIDL)Loan Application Deadline Date:* 02/16/2009. ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Counties:* Cleburne *Contiguous Counties:* Alabama: Calhoun, Cherokee, Clay, Randolph, Talladega Georgia: Carroll, Haralson, Polk *The Interest Rates are:* Percent Homeowners With Credit Available Elsewhere 5.375 Homeowners Without Credit Available Elsewhere 2.687 Businesses With Credit Available Elsewhere 8.000 Businesses & Small Agricultural Cooperatives Without Credit Available Elsewhere 4.000 Other (Including Non-Profit Organizations) With Credit Available Elsewhere 5.250 Businesses and Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere 4.000 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 11247 C and for economic injury is 11248 0. The States which received an EIDL Declaration # are Alabama, Georgia. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008) Dated: May 15, 2008. Steven C. Preston, Administrator. [FR Doc. E8-11547 Filed 5-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION [Disaster Declaration # 11251] Alaska Disaster # AK-00013 Declaration of Economic Injury AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This is a notice of an Economic Injury Disaster Loan
(EIDL)declaration for the State of ALASKA, dated 05/16/2008. *Incident:* Increased Power Costs Due to Avalanche. *Incident Period:* 04/16/2008 and continuing. DATES: *Effective Date:* 05/16/2008. *EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date:* 02/16/2009. ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's EIDL declaration, applications for economic injury disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Counties:* City and Borough of Juneau. *Contiguous Counties:* Alaska: Chatham Reaa, Haines Borough. *The Interest Rate is:* 4.000. The number assigned to this disaster for economic injury is 112510. The State which received an EIDL Declaration # is Alaska. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59002) Dated: May 16, 2008. Steven C. Preston, Administrator. [FR Doc. E8-11557 Filed 5-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION [Disaster Declaration #11245 and #11246] New Mexico Disaster #NM-00006 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of NEW MEXICO dated 05/15/2008. *Incident:* Trigo Fire. *Incident Period:* 04/15/2008 and continuing. DATES: *Effective Date:* 05/15/2008. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:* 07/14/2008. *Economic Injury
(EIDL)Loan Application Deadline Date:* 02/16/2009. ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Counties:* Torrance *Contiguous Counties:* New Mexico: Bernalillo, San Miguel, Valencia, Guadalupe, Santa Fe, Lincoln, Socorro *The Interest Rates are:* Percent Homeowners With Credit Available Elsewhere 5.500 Homeowners Without Credit Available Elsewhere 2.750 Businesses With Credit Available Elsewhere 8.000 Businesses & Small Agricultural Cooperatives Without Credit Available Elsewhere 4.000 Other (Including Non-Profit Organizations) With Credit Available Elsewhere 5.250 Businesses and Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere 4.000 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 11245 5 and for economic injury is 11246 0. The State which received an EIDL Declaration # is New Mexico. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008) Dated: May 15, 2008. Steven C. Preston, Administrator. [FR Doc. E8-11548 Filed 5-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION National Small Business Development Center Advisory Board AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA). ACTION: Notice of open Federal advisory committee meeting. SUMMARY: The SBA is issuing this notice to announce the location, date, time and agenda for the next meeting of the National Small Business Development Center
(SBDC)Advisory Board. DATES: The meeting will be held on Tuesday, June 10, 2008 at 3 p.m. EST. ADDRESSES: This meeting will be held at the Small Business and Technology Development Center, 5 West Hargett Street, Suite 600, Raleigh, North Carolina. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), SBA announces the meeting of the National SBDC Advisory Board. This Board provides advice and counsel to the SBA Administrator and Associate Administrator for Small Business Development Centers. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss following issues pertaining to the SBDC Advisory Board: —Role of the Small Business and Technology Development Center (SBTDC); —Discussion on Board roles, responsibilities, and expectations; —Counselor Certification; —SBA Update from AA/OSBDCs; —White Paper discussion. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The meeting is open to the public however advance notice of attendance is requested. Anyone wishing to attend and/or make a presentation to the Board must contact Alanna Falcone by Tuesday, May 27, 2008, by fax or e-mail in order to be placed on the agenda. Alanna Falcone, Program Analyst, 409 Third Street, SW., Washington, DC 20416, Phone, 202-619-1612, Fax 202-481-0134, e-mail, *alanna.falcone@sba.gov* . Additionally, if you need accommodations because of a disability or require additional information, please contact Alanna Falcone at the information above. Cherylyn H. Lebon, Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. E8-11558 Filed 5-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 6210] Notice of Renewal of Advisory Committee on International Law Charter *Summary:* The Department of State has renewed the Charter of the Advisory Committee on International Law. Through this Committee, the Department of State will continue to obtain the views and advice of a cross-section of the country's outstanding members of the legal profession on significant issues of international law. The Committee's consideration of these legal issues in the conduct of our foreign affairs provides a unique contribution to the creation and promotion of U.S. foreign policy. The Under Secretary for Management has determined the Committee is necessary and in the public interest. The Committee is comprised of all former Legal Advisers of the Department of State and up to 20 individuals appointed by the current Legal Adviser. The Committee follows the procedures prescribed by the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). Meetings will be open to the public unless a determination is made in accordance with section 10(d) of the FACA and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c) that a meeting or portion of the meeting should be closed to the public. Notice of each meeting will be published in the **Federal Register** at least 15 days prior to the meeting, unless there are extraordinary circumstances that require shorter notice. For further information, please contact Sharla Draemel, Executive Director, Advisory Committee on International Law, Department of State, at 202-776-8436 or *draemels@state.gov.* Dated: May 19, 2008. Sharla Draemel, Attorney-Adviser, Office of Claims and Investment Disputes, Office of the Legal Adviser, Executive Director, Advisory Committee on International Law, Department of State. [FR Doc. E8-11626 Filed 5-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-08-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration [Summary Notice No. PE-2008-20] Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of petition for exemption received. SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of 14 CFR. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition. DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number involved and must be received on or before June 12, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2008-0496 using any of the following methods: • *Government-wide rulemaking Web site:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Mail:* Send comments to the Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. • *Fax:* Fax comments to the Docket Management Facility at 202-493-2251. • *Hand Delivery:* Bring comments to the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. *Privacy:* We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information you provide. Using the search function of our docket web site, anyone can find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78). *Docket:* To read background documents or comments received, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* at any time or to the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Annette K. Kovite,
(425)227-1262, Transport Airplane Directorate, Federal Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356, or Frances Shaver,
(202)267-9681, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591. This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85. Issued in Washington, DC, on May 19, 2008. Pamela Hamilton-Powell, Director, Office of Rulemaking. Petition for Exemption *Docket No.:* FAA-2008-0496. *Petitioner:* Alenia Aeronautica S.p.A. *Section of 14 CFR Affected:* § 25.841(a), and (b)(6). *Description of Relief Sought:* Alenia seeks relief for the C-27J JCA airplane from the requirements for:
(1)Not exceeding a cabin pressure altitude of 8000 feet for pressurized cabins and compartments during normal operation,
(2)not exposing occupants to cabin pressures in excess of 15,000 feet after any probable failure condition of the pressurization system, and
(3)providing a warning indication if cabin pressure altitude exceeds 10,000 feet. [FR Doc. E8-11665 Filed 5-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Surface Transportation Board [STB Docket No. AB-33 (Sub-No. 235X)] Union Pacific Railroad Company—Abandonment Exemption—in Calhoun and Webster Counties, IA Union Pacific Railroad Company
(UP)has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1152 Subpart F— *Exempt Abandonments* to abandon the Roelyn Industrial Lead from milepost 5.28 near Roelyn to milepost 8.05 near Somers, a distance of 2.77 miles in Calhoun and Webster Counties, IA. The line traverses United States Postal Service Zip Codes 50566 and 50586. UP has certified that:
(1)No local traffic has moved over the line for at least 2 years;
(2)there is no overhead traffic on the line;
(3)no formal complaint filed by a user of rail service on the line (or by a state or local government entity acting on behalf of such user) regarding cessation of service over the line either is pending with the Surface Transportation Board or with any U.S. District Court or has been decided in favor of complainant within the 2-year period; and
(4)the requirements of 49 CFR 1105.7 (environmental report), 49 CFR 1105.8 (historic report), 49 CFR 1105.11 (transmittal letter), 49 CFR 1105.12 (newspaper publication), and 49 CFR 1152.50(d)(1) (notice to governmental agencies) have been met. As a condition to this exemption, any employee adversely affected by the abandonment shall be protected under *Oregon Short Line R. Co.—Abandonment—Goshen,* 360 I.C.C. 91 (1979). To address whether this condition adequately protects affected employees, a petition for partial revocation under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) must be filed. Provided no formal expression of intent to file an offer of financial assistance
(OFA)has been received, this exemption will be effective on June 25, 2008, unless stayed pending reconsideration. Petitions to stay that do not involve environmental issues, 1 formal expressions of intent to file an OFA under 49 CFR 1152.27(c)(2), 2 and trail use/rail banking requests under 49 CFR 1152.29 must be filed by June 2, 2008. Petitions to reopen or requests for public use conditions under 49 CFR 1152.28 must be filed by June 12, 2008, with the Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. 1 The Board will grant a stay if an informed decision on environmental issues (whether raised by a party or by the Board's Section of Environmental Analysis
(SEA)in its independent investigation) cannot be made before the exemption's effective date. *See Exemption of Out-of-Service Rail Lines,* 5 I.C.C.2d 377 (1989). Any request for a stay should be filed as soon as possible so that the Board may take appropriate action before the exemption's effective date. 2 Each OFA must be accompanied by the filing fee, which currently is set at $1,300. *See* 49 CFR 1002.2(f)(25). A copy of any petition filed with the Board should be sent to UP's representative: Mack H. Shumate, Jr., 101 North Wacker Drive, Room 1920, Chicago, IL 60606. If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void *ab initio.* UP has filed a combined environmental and historic report addressing the effects, if any, of the abandonment on the environment and historic resources. SEA will issue an environmental assessment
(EA)by May 30, 2008. Interested persons may obtain a copy of the EA by writing to SEA (Room 1100, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, DC 20423-0001) or by calling SEA, at
(202)245-0305. [Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS)at 1-800-877-8339.] Comments on environmental and historic preservation matters must be filed within 15 days after the EA becomes available to the public. Environmental, historic preservation, public use, or trail use/rail banking conditions will be imposed, where appropriate, in a subsequent decision. Pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFR 1152.29(e)(2), UP shall file a notice of consummation with the Board to signify that it has exercised the authority granted and fully abandoned the line. If consummation has not been effected by UP's filing of a notice of consummation by May 23, 2009, and there are no legal or regulatory barriers to consummation, the authority to abandon will automatically expire. Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at *http://www.stb.dot.gov.* Decided: May 19, 2008. By the Board, Joseph H. Dettmar, Acting Director, Office of Proceedings. Anne K. Quinlan, Acting Secretary. [FR Doc. E8-11513 Filed 5-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4915-01-P UNITED STATES INSTITUTE OF PEACE Notice of Meeting *Date/Time:* Friday, June 6, 2008, 9:30 a.m.-1:30 p.m. *Location:* 1200 17th Street, NW., Suite 200, Washington, DC 20036-3011. *Status:* Open Session—Portions may be closed pursuant to Subsection
(c)of Section 552(b) of Title 5, United States Code, as provided in subsection 1706(h)(3) of the United States Institute of Peace Act, Public Law 98-525. *Agenda:* June 6, 2008 Board Meeting; Approval of Minutes of the One Hundred Twenty-Ninth Meeting (January 10, 2008) of the Board of Directors; Chairman's Report; President's Report; Selection of National Peace Essay contest winners; Other General Issues. *Contact:* Tessie F. Higgs, Executive Office, Telephone:
(202)429-3836. Dated: May 16, 2008. Patricia P. Thomson, Executive Vice President, United States Institute of Peace. [FR Doc. E8-11544 Filed 5-22-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-AR-P 73 101 Friday, May 23, 2008 Presidential Documents Title 3— The President Proclamation 8258 of May 20, 2008 A Day of Solidarity With the Cuban People, 2008 By the President of the United States of America A Proclamation Freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of worship are among the liberties that Americans cherish. Our Nation fully supports the brave people who work to secure these liberties in the countries where they are denied. And on this Day of Solidarity with the Cuban People, we focus our attention on the men and women working to secure freedom, democracy, and human rights for the citizens of Cuba. For half a century, the Cuban people have suffered under oppressive dictatorship. Under the rule of Fidel and Raul Castro, Cubans have seen their political freedoms denied, their economy reduced to shambles, and their families torn apart. The Cuban people deserve better—and the American people stand with them as they work to achieve it. The United States is rallying the free world to the cause of Cuban liberty. We continue to shine a bright light on the Castro regime's abuses—and America calls on the Government of Cuba to immediately and unconditionally release all prisoners of conscience. We keep these prisoners, their families, and all Cubans in our prayers. Especially on this Day of Solidarity, we ask the Almighty to comfort and strengthen those who suffer under the Castro dictatorship—and to hasten the day when Cuba's suffering comes to an end. NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim May 21, 2008, as A Day of Solidarity with the Cuban People to recognize those who are suffering in Cuba, especially Cuba's prisoners of conscience. I call upon the citizens of the United States to mark this observance with appropriate ceremonies and activities that demonstrate America's resolute support for those living under the Castro regime. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twentieth day of May, in the year of our Lord two thousand eight, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-second. GWBOLD.EPS [FR Doc. 08-1296 Filed 5-22-08; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 12
Traces to 12 documents
CFR
U.S. Code
- Registration, responsibilities, and oversight of self-regulatory organizations§ 78s
- Transaction fees§ 78ee
- Definitions and application§ 78c
- Registered securities associations§ 78o–3
- Public information; agency rules, opinions, orders, records, and proceedings§ 552
- National securities exchanges§ 78f
- Open meetings§ 552b
- Authority to exempt rail carrier transportation§ 10502
17 references not yet in our index
- Pub. L. 93-438
- Pub. L. 104-68
- 10 CFR 35
- 17 CFR 240.19
- 15 USC 78
- 49 CFR 1152
- 49 CFR 1105.7
- 49 CFR 1105.8
- 49 CFR 1105.11
- 49 CFR 1105.12
- 49 CFR 1152.50(d)(1)
- 49 CFR 1152.27(c)(2)
- 49 CFR 1152.29
- 49 CFR 1152.28
- 49 CFR 1002.2(f)(25)
- 49 CFR 1152.29(e)(2)
- Pub. L. 98-525
Citation graph
cites case law
Rules and Regulations
Notice
Pub. L.Pub. L. 93-438
Pub. L.Pub. L. 104-68
Cite10 CFR 35
Cites 29 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources